Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIowa polls at this point in 2004:
Steven Rattner ?@SteveRattnerIowa polls at this point in 2004:
Dean 26%
Gephardt 22
Kerry 9
Edwards 5
Caucus results:
Kerry 38
Edwards 32
Dean 18
Gephardt 11
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 740 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iowa polls at this point in 2004: (Original Post)
bigtree
Dec 2015
OP
A must read for anyone interested in the accuracy of professional, "scientific" polls.
reformist2
Dec 2015
#5
elleng
(130,980 posts)1. THANK Y0U, bigtree!
JI7
(89,252 posts)2. i think dean and gep were higher and kerry lower before this
If you look at previous polls. So based on that this poll would have been seen as positive for kerry at the time.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)3. The Polls By Definition Are Not... NOT Random...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0
OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. Whats going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?
Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify likely voters, has become even thornier.
...
We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And dont look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of late. Its not their fault. They are only as good as the raw material they have to work with.
In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when were off base. What this means for 2016 is anybodys guess.
Cliff Zukin is a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Watch the wave that upsets the steamship Hillary....
OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. Whats going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?
Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify likely voters, has become even thornier.
...
We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And dont look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of late. Its not their fault. They are only as good as the raw material they have to work with.
In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when were off base. What this means for 2016 is anybodys guess.
Cliff Zukin is a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Watch the wave that upsets the steamship Hillary....
reformist2
(9,841 posts)5. A must read for anyone interested in the accuracy of professional, "scientific" polls.
Response to reformist2 (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to bigtree (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed